Dear LSR WG, I object on two basis ...
1) The version -04 does not contain normative MUST that UPA shall only be used to trigger invalidation when end to end encapsulation is used for subject application(s). So as written is in fact quite undeployable in a mixed vendor and legacy node(s) environment doing hop by hop routing. We can't just hope that this is all about configuring the network in a proper way. 2) The solution is too pragmatic ... It does not look at the problem holistically. Yes I still think the problem is worth solving but outside of link state IGP doing UPA blast flooding everywhere domain wide even if no nodes need that info. As discussed at length it could be done via either BGP indirection or via PUB-SUB model (as proposed). Regards, Robert On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 10:07 PM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > LSR Working Group, > > This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix > Announcement” - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04. > Please indicate your support or objection on this list prior to September > 7th, 2023. > > Thanks, > Acee > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
